Appreciate the post of Reagan's warning back in the day when the first encroachment of federalism was taking place in the area of or move towards universal medicine. Ironic now that we have not only universal, mandatory healthcare on the backend of life of which he was warning at the time but we also have this same thing on the front end in some sectors of life dictated at present by status and levels of income. The next step would be to finish the job and make the entire front end segment under a federal mandatory system and then it only leaves the process of filling in the middle and the concept of creeping federalism would be complete. Cover the cradle and cover the grave and it's not hard at that point to finish the job. I remember to my utter shock when General Motors executives came out in 93' supporting Hillary's idea of healthcare and thinking, "WHAT THE !" But then the other shoe fell and I saw switching the healthcare burden of GM from private to public and the cost savings to GM would in effect add so much to the bottom line that there was enough in profits to double the stock overnight just in EPS valuation.

Many democrats will scream about the republicans and corp. America as if their party is above it all but think again. Here's a quote from yesterday's "Democracy Now" website on corp. dollars going democrat.

Business Donors Favoring Democrats over Republicans

On the campaign trail, new figures show traditionally Republican business interests are now donating far more money to the two Democratic candidates. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Senator John McCain has raised just over $13 million from seven major industries that usually favor Republicans. By contrast, Senator Hillary Clinton has raised $27 million, while Senator Barack Obama has raised $22.5 million. The firms surveyed include companies involved in financial services, pharmaceuticals, military contracts, energy and agribusiness.

That 1/5 of gov't monopoly Reagan spoke of (I'm sure much larger now) is moving to protect it's interests so just how far will the imagined commies really go? These people aren't commies and never have been, they're merchantile monopolist only under the poltical rouse of letting "US" think as such. At the same time the republicans aren't free market capitialist either but that's another thread. To borrow a favorite phrase of Fox News, just those highlighted businesses above pumping in money to democrats, just how "FAIR AND BALANCE" will their solutions be to those 3 major problems facing Americans?

LMAO!!!!!!

Those who extoll the noble cause of everyone having healthcare although of goodheart seem IMO to totally ignore the past practice of the old world merchantilism where a single or small number of business concerns by force of law would have positioned themselves to in effect. mop up and take it to the bank with a gov't mandated monopoly. Reagan spoke of 1/5 of the business segment even in that day under that monopoly status. Many of these same goodhearted folks would in turn berate the abuse of private business interests for example in the Iraq theater and in many cases I happen to share that opinion as you are aware. But what I can't understand is the "Rush to Nirvana" in the area of universal healthcare that history proves beyond doubt will end up with a "Halliburton nightmare" in the area of healthcare. And all due respect to you in my use of Halliburton but it's a means to show that they are not consistant IMHO when it comes to corp. abuse or setting up the very potential that leads to corp. abuse of the taxpayer and citizens of this country.

Again, I really do appreciate the fact that you post the Reagan piece and in all fairness I didn't look at Hillary because I already know her basic deal so what's new?

Just out of interest, on a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being zero and 10 being high priority) where would you rate the threat of some form of universal healthcare coming as a result of the 2008' Presidential election no matter who wins? I think it's about a 8 if not a 9 and that could go higher depending on who get's elected and how the Congress breaks out. Either way, no matter who wins, the creeping gradualism Reagan spoke of will continue. Remember, it's a given where the democrats will go but over the years since Reagan made that speech and you can include Reagan in this mix, the republicans have done nothing to reverse the very course Reagan warned of and even in the most recent couple of years, the republicans even advanced SCHIPS and it's longevity but it just wasn't to the degree the democrats wanted.

Just because you take 2 steps forward, 1 step back, 2 steps forward, etc. etc. doesn't mean you are not advancing toward a destination so until I see the republicans at least taking 2 step back and one forward, I can only conclude going republican will get me to total statism at 30 mph rather than a the 100 mph of the democrat plan!

Not to change course but since you are here, did you get a chance to see the video or read the transcript of Meet the Press this past Sunday with CIA Director Gen. Hayden? There is a lot he talked about that could be hotly debated but this one part alone jumped off the screen at me.

From the transcript:

MR. RUSSERT: Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, believes that there is--if there is another terrorist attack, it will originate there.GEN. HAYDEN: We believe so, too. We, we, we can see what's going on. Our--you, you talked before about intelligence and how good or ill we have been in the past. We've gotten much better against al-Qaeda, and, of course, tomorrow we should be better than we are today. So, you know, that's not an absolute scale. We have to keep getting better. But it's very clear to us that al-Qaeda has been able, over the past 18 months or so, to establish a safe haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area that they have not enjoyed before, that they are bringing operatives into that region for training, operatives that, a phrase I would use, Tim, wouldn't attract your attention if they were going through the customs line at Dulles with you when you're coming back from overseas.MR. RUSSERT:Look, look, look Western?GEN. HAYDEN:Look Western, who, who, who would be able to come into this country with--again, without attracting the kind of attention that others might.

This literally jumped off the page because IMO is vaults the importance of border control more than ever because if these "western" types are trained in the Afghan/Pakistan area, they have to past through some immigration portal at some point or cross illegally and this moves the whole issue back to immigration and border securuty.

I know you see our presence in the Middle East as a hedge against terrorist attacks, there is some truth there and I respect you may feel there is a lot truth but IMO what Hayden just said makes the border just as strong a case for theater as Afghanistan or Iraq and Iran! This really does IMO raise the level on the immigration issue which IMO has become a non issue during the recent primary election cycle!

Take a look at it and see what you think.

Here is a link to the entire transcript which is 7 pages long and video links are embedded at the transcript also.

I know you see our presence in the Middle East as a hedge against terrorist attacks, there is some truth there and I respect you may feel there is a lot truth but IMO what Hayden just said makes the border just as strong a case for theater as Afghanistan or Iraq and Iran! This really does IMO raise the level on the immigration issue which IMO has become a non issue during the recent primary election cycle!

Take a look at it and see what you think.

Here is a link to the entire transcript which is 7 pages long and video links are embedded at the transcript also.

There are several obvious problems with getting border security tight enough to keep everyone out that is not supposed to be here. The largest one is the largest one. The physical size of our borders. To completely lock it down the amount of manpower needed would be very large and very costly. Some people would say that we cannot lock down the Iraq-Iran border and there are far fewer rules there.

Another and very important problem would be with no real guest worker program our labor markets which are already stretched a little thin(but only if you maintain the current social programs for our citizens making it not very cost effective for them to work) would suffer greatly in my humble opinion.

Another problem is what do you do with someone when they get here. I believe now they just send them back. So in effect we would be training someone how to be effective at breaching our border security.

I think we should put up some resistance but I believe our overall strategy should remain more on the proactive side. I would much rather go get them while they are still in their training camps. I am not trying to take anything away from the job law enforcement has done but I believe that our guys overseas help not only with intel but by keeping some of these "evil doers" just a little busy.

There is no doubt in my mind that Gen Hayden is correct. Our enemy has proved one thing and that is that they have a very good ability to adapt to what we are doing.

The only reason that I posted the Reagan clips was since B. Hussein Obama says he wants to change government and Reagan of course changed the way government worked. With the endorsement of a former Reagan official I just figured it was a matter of time before people started saying Obama was like Reagan and I wanted to point out that the change he seeks is much different than the changes Reagan sought. As far as can tell Obama has really only said he wants to raise taxes and pass universal health care. On your scale I would guess a 7 out of 10. I still think they may just chip away like they have been doing up to this point.

As for Obama being Reaganlike, he does have that ability to deliver a message, to energize if you will and make people feel good. Even many conservative pundits including the likes of Rush have admitted that. Now IMO there not much meat to the message and this may rackle a few people here, but Obama reminds me of one of those feel good preachers. You leave the sermon feeling real good about yourself and what's around you but you didn't really learn a thing concerning the bible or deeper biblical ideals. Jesus loves me and this is all I know and in most cases it's all I want to know!

Obama has thrown out a lot of feel good ideas but IMO I've just not seen that much in details but in fairness I've not seen much from the other 2 either to satisfy my needs so there you go.

As for immigration, it's a tough deal no matter which way you go and there really are no hard fast answers to completely solve the problem. I do think birth right citizenship to children of illegals is wrong and I also believe any gov't aid including education to illegals is wrong and I know I'll catch some hell from some quarters for that statement most likely but what the heck!

I'd put the issue of immigration a bit higher than yourself but that's me. As for socialized medicine, we've had it in some form for years and we seem comfortable with it. Going forward, it just will come down to how far ahead in comfort we are willing to go. I think universal healthcare in some capacity whether public mandated/ private provided or otherwise is inevitable and it's a matter now of closing the gap between the cradle and the grave. IMO America fought to leave Old World Europe behind and then since a least the mid 1800's if not before have been doing everything to become just like it. We have IMHO opinion succeeded in that effort and now it's just some fine turning to make it a complete picture!

How much will the taxpayer have to pay in total to end up collecting $90 in old parking tickets? With the woman living in public housing and being elderly on top of that, what will they do if she shows up to court and the judge sez, "$90 or 10 days" and she responds, "give me 10 days!"

I found this video and I think he shares many of your views. Well first you have to ignore that he has taken both sides of most of these issues. The hair trigger alert thing had me cracked up kinda shows how little he understands.

How much will the taxpayer have to pay in total to end up collecting $90 in old parking tickets? With the woman living in public housing and being elderly on top of that, what will they do if she shows up to court and the judge sez, "$90 or 10 days" and she responds, "give me 10 days!"

Click to expand...

Sad. In my parts the police arrested a pregnant woman and handcuffed her to the wall for supposedly driving to the hospital without a DL on her. I live in the bible belt and this caused a bit of a stir.

I found this video and I think he shares many of your views. Well first you have to ignore that he has taken both sides of most of these issues. The hair trigger alert thing had me cracked up kinda shows how little he understands.

Click to expand...

Yeah he has been all over the map. He claims being antiwar but how does that stack up when you view his voting record on defense appropriation bills for both Iraq and Afghanistan?

This should make one seriously question his antiwar postiion as he so claims.

Once the U.S. went into Iraq, Obama's position became much more nuanced. While he still opposed the war, he was not in favor of an early pullout. In 2004, he even talked about sending more U.S. troops to Iraq in order to stabilize the country as a prelude to an eventual withdrawal.

His Senate voting record on Iraq is quite similar to that of Hillary Clinton. Both senators waited until May 2007 before they finally voted to cut off funds for the war, on the grounds that the administration had not agreed to a firm timetable for withdrawal. They both voted against a June 2006 amendment proposed by John Kerry (D-Mass.) for the redeployment of U.S. troops.

Regarding terrorist targets in the Afghanistan/Pakistan region, Obama told The Associated Press Thursday: "I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance." He then added: "Involving civilians."
Seeming to think twice about his response, Obama then said, "Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."

Now can we really be sure after that response above if he really is anti nuke? Hillary picked up on it and was using it to full advantage.

Obama proves once again that the finalist beauty contestants that make it through the swim suit and talent show portion of the electorial process then to be 2 face liars who have flipped and flopped so often, you can't really seriously believe them in what they say. All 3 finalist IMHO fit that bill and there's little difference between the 3.

But what is funny is how even the democrat liberal hardcore has turned on Hillary. Exposing the latest Hillbaby lie to the troops is none other than Daily KOS!

Sad part for true democrat antiwar liberals was that they had at least 2 candidates in Gravel and Kuchinich who were principled and committed to the antiwar cause but never had a chance. Why? Because there really are very few true blue committed liberal antiwar types in the democrat party. The reality, there are tons of anti-republicans posing as antiwar liberals in the democrat party!

And in the interest of fair and balanced let me add this about the Republican dominated "so-called " conservative movement who in their wildest imaginations believe they are for limited gov't, fiscal responsibility, etc. etc.

Recently, you lost one of your iconic leaders who emerged in the last half of the 20th century in the one and only William F. Buckley Jr. From his early days, to his years on PBS Firing Line to his many decades with National Review, Buckley was considered a conservative's "Conservative!" He sat atop the mountain that conservative followers made pilgrimage too and worshiped at the base of. He was the supposed Moses who was leading the lost flock out of the wilderness of FDR New Dealism. Well consider this very quote and how the warfare state and the welfare state in reality do play hand in hand together.

"We have got to accept Big Government for the duration – for neither an offensive nor a defensive war can be waged, given our present government skills, except through the instrument of a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores. … And if they deem Soviet power a menace to our freedom (as I happen to), they will have to support large armies and air forces, atomic energy, central intelligence, war production boards, and the attendant centralization of power in Washington – even with Truman at the reins of it all."

William F. Buckley, Jan. 25th 1952, The Commonweal magazine, and it's found under the title (I love this part) "A Young REPUBLICAN View"

Click to expand...

And God Bless Pat Buchanan who in May will release a new book raising needed questions not only about WW2, FDR and friends but will bring back into clear focus that it may be true that repubs are the 21st century warparty but it was the 20th century warparty known as democrats who plowed, planted and fertilized the very field of which republicans are now at work 24/7 with their own combine harvestors!

Sad. In my parts the police arrested a pregnant woman and handcuffed her to the wall for supposedly driving to the hospital without a DL on her. I live in the bible belt and this caused a bit of a stir.

Click to expand...

Yeah, sad to say things like this happen and a couple of good friends of mine are cops including a neighbor 2 doors up. However, there are some gut busters too and my fav. is the clown riding a John Deere lawn tractor down a 4 lane divided highway going to the pawn shop after stealing the thing. Turns out he was in a gang stealing lawn and other tools from people's garages and tool sheds and he rolled over and turned in his buddies all for the large sum of a McDonald's Chocolate Milk Shake from the drive thru. I kid you not!

Sad part for true democrat antiwar liberals was that they had at least 2 candidates in Gravel and Kuchinich who were principled and committed to the antiwar cause but never had a chance. Why? Because there really are very few true blue committed liberal antiwar types in the democrat party. The reality, there are tons of anti-republicans posing as antiwar liberals in the democrat party!

You didn't slam Libertarians and Independents, so I'm gonna. IMO Libertarians are more devoted to their outlook than even Republicans are. However, thinking political strategy, I do not believe that anyone will ever get voted into office if they do not try to hook up with independents. They will never get the voter's base needed to get into office, and more so than an independent, running for very high office. Seems to be a waste of time and money that actually undermines them. In other words, they are being looked at as 'oh, one of those running again' when they never win. You probably can correct me with a few success stories in other parts of the US, but on the whole, libertarians run on principle, not on strategy.I will give them kudos by participating, and attracting enough support, Ideological candidates force the first tier candidates to some policy decision that will appeal to the public.

Nah, your observation in fact was very well said. For whatever the reason, most independants (I'll include the LP in that) are driven in some cases by single or handful of issues and others driven off a whole agenda but overall they all share a common thread of being driven by principle.

In many cases, these principles are often radically different (at least in appearance) from the status quo and people generally don't like radical change. Look at the overall reception given by either party to say Ron Paul for example or Dennis Kuchinich. In the case of Paul, if you hate taxes, hate gov't, what to put the military on the border to stop immigration, end Federal control of education and let locals put God back into the schools if you will, etc. Paul is a dream come true. Kuchinich if you really believe in certain forms of welfare and gov't involvement, a force to challenge corp. control of gov't and really believe the so-called democrat party anti-war even anti military stand (a bit of myth I might add) then Dennis is your dreamboat candidate. But when the votes were counted, they both together didn't have enough voters to win a dog catchers contest so what does that say about the principles of the American people as a whole?

We'll scream and bellyache about the current problems and point fingers all day long but when given the chance to do something different, we seem to never walk that path. There is a belief in what is known as the beaten spouse syndrome in which an abused spouse will not depart an abusive home out of fear of the unknown as at least in his/her situation they've conditioned themselves mentally to live within the situation at hand rather than face the fear of doing something different. It's a belief in security even though it comes with a heavy price. We voters are really IMO much that same way.

Robert Kagan, a founder of Project for A New American Century and contributor to such NeoConservative icons as the Weekly Standard wrote a piece for the publication World Affairs that has got quite a few folks upset. The article is called NeoCon Nation: NeoConservatism, c. 1776' and makes a strong case historically that what the NeoCons are doing now is not new but in fact a tradition that has transcended through our gov't over the years and you know what, he's right! Kagan, in a real sense holds up a mirror to our society and sez, "we have found the enemy and the enemy is us!" And I think some of that comes from the voter playing the abusive spouse again.

People today scream at conservatives for laying claim to those who oppose the war for being unpatriotic and I too object to that line of thinking but what is interesting is the fact that it was a democrat icon President who at one time made it a crime to condemn US war policy up to and including deportation. The President was Woodrow Wilson, the war WW1 obviously and the law was the Espionage Act of 1917' and the Sedition Act of 1918'. During the period over 170,000 people were arrested and many deported. Even the US Post Office refused to ship any material critical of the war effort at the time so as wrongheaded as some are today with their claims of unpatriotic, commie and all that crap, it can't hold a candle to some of the stuff Wilson, a democrat, did. And less we not forget Lincoln or FDR either (spread the party wealth)and this goes to the heart IMO of Kagan's point to some extent.

It's a lenghty piece, I won't kid you at all on that but it's well worth the read and although some who travel in my political belief circles are enraged at Kagan asserting that in reality we are all NeoCons, I for one applaud his voice and appreciate his willingness to in many respects state a very obvious truth that many "NON" NeoCons want to deny. God Bless him for holding up that mirror and IMO pointing the obvious.

Speaking of principles, here's a fine example of a principled man who was running for public office back in 2000' during a debate.

In a previous post long ago I linked the transcript but I guess someone put it on youtube now. Other Bush quotes are:

Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.

Click to expand...

Houston Chronicle 4/9/99 as he commented on Clinton's adventures in Kosovo

And one of my alltime favorites:

Our enemies are innovative and resourceful...They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.

Click to expand...

From remarks by the president at the signing of The Defense Appropriations Act for 2005 (8/5/04)

LMAO at that one! And before you Bushies launch into orbit, I know what he probably meant to say "we don't stop thinking of ways to get our enemies either, etc." but he just has a horrible habit of tripping up on his own words. Makes for great fun on Leno and Letterman and that look of Jon Stewart when he gets a nugget like this is killer!